McKeen v. Boord

60 Ind. 280
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 60 Ind. 280 (McKeen v. Boord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McKeen v. Boord, 60 Ind. 280 (Ind. 1878).

Opinion

Perkins, J.

The record in this case abounds in defects and omissions.

No exception was taken to any ruling upon the pleadings.

[281]*281The verdict was returned into court on the 14th of September, 1872.

No written motion for a new trial appears in the record, till the 11th day of January, 1873. On that day the motion was made and overruled, final judgment was entered, and ninety days given to file a bill of exceptions. See Ward v. Angevine, 46 Ind. 415; Posey v. Scales, 55 Ind. 282; Myers v. Jarboe, 56 Ind. 57.

On the 12th day of March, 1878, the bill was signed. The following is the statement, in the record, of the person who signed it:

“ This bill of exceptions was presented to me on the 12th day of March, 1873, the parties both being present by their attorneys, and the plaintiffs objected to my signing the bill, the court not being in session, for the reason that I am no longer judge of the court in which said cause was tried. John T. Scott.”

Scott ceased to be judge on the 6th of March, 1873, and his successor, who should have signed the bill, was the judge of the Yigo Circuit Court, to which court the business of the common pleas was transferred. Ketcham v. Hill, 42 Ind. 64.

The judgment was rendered against McKeen, Jewett,Smith and Roberts. McKeen alone appeals, and assigns errors. No notice appears to have been served upon the other judgment defendants, as required by section 551 of the code. 2 R. S. 1876, p. 239.

No brief, except a short one for a supersedeas, has been filed by appellant. No marginal notes are placed upon the transcript, as required by Rule 19 of this court.

A motion is made in this court to strike out the bill of exceptions; and, in their brief, counsel insist that the appeal should be dismissed.

The bill of exceptions must be struck out; and, as all the errors assigned are based upon rulings, the exceptions to which must appear by bill or bills of exceptions, the bill [282]*282being struck out, the record discloses no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Perry v. State ex rel. Snyder
115 N.E. 59 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Aetna Indemnity Co. v. Wassall Clay Co.
97 N.E. 562 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Patterson v. Yancey
71 S.W. 845 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
People ex rel. Hambel v. McConnell
40 N.E. 608 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)
Wood v. Ohio Falls Car Co.
36 N.E. 282 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Bement v. May
34 N.E. 327 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Bowden v. Wilson
21 Fla. 165 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1885)
Spahr v. Dickson
67 Ind. 394 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)
Reed v. Worland
64 Ind. 216 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 Ind. 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeen-v-boord-ind-1878.